Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 73

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study

Michel, Marije, Révész, Andrea, Lu, Xiaojun, Kourtali, Nektaria-Efstathia, Lee, Minjin, Borges, Lais·2020·Second Language Research

Abstract

Most research into second language (L2) writing has focused on the products of writing tasks; much less empirical work has examined the behaviours in which L2 writers engage and the cognitive processes that underlie writing behaviours. We aimed to fill this gap by investigating the extent to which writing speed fluency, pausing, eye-gaze behaviours and the cognitive processes associated with pausing may vary across independent and integrated tasks throughout the whole, and at five different stages, of the writing process. Sixty L2 writers performed two independent and two integrated TOEFL iBT writing tasks counterbalanced across participants. While writing, we logged participants’ keystrokes and captured their eye-movements. Participants took part in a stimulated recall interview based on the last task they had completed. Mixed effects regressions and qualitative analyses revealed that, apart from source use on the integrated task, L2 writers engaged in similar writing behaviours and cognitive processes during the independent and integrated tasks. The integrated task, however, elicited more dynamic and varied behaviours and cognitive processes across writing stages. Adopting a mixed-methods approach enabled us to gain more complete and specific insights than using a single method.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0267658320915501

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. 10.1111/lang.12232 · DOI
  2. 10.1177/0265532213509810 · DOI
  3. Barkaoui K, 2015, Test takers’ writing activities during the TOEFL iBT writing tasks: A stimulated recall study
  4. 10.1017/S027226311900010X · DOI
  5. Biber D, 2013, Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis
  6. Brunfaut T, 2015, Looking into test-takers’ cognitive processes whilst completing reading tasks: a mixed-method eye-tracking and stimulated recall study
  7. 10.1017/S027226311900007X · DOI
  8. 10.1017/9781108233279 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1080/15434303.2011.622016 · DOI
  10. 10.1515/9781614511335-006 · doi:10.1515/9781614511335-006
  11. David V, 2015, Impromptu timed-writing and process-based timed-writing exams: Comparing students’ performance and investigating students’ and raters’ perceptions
  12. 10.1002/ets2.12071 · DOI
  13. Enright M, 2011, Validity evidence supporting the interpretation and use of TOEFL iBT scores
  14. 10.2307/356630 · doi:10.2307/356630 · Paper page
  15. 10.1348/978185409X421129 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/lang.12280 · DOI
  17. Hayes JR, 1996, The science of writing, 1
  18. Kellogg RT, 1996, The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications, 57
  19. 10.17239/jowr-2015.06.03.2 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1177/0741088313491692 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1017/S0272263119000251 · DOI
  23. 10.5054/tq.2011.240859 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/j.asw.2008.07.001 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/lang.12079 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.4324/9781315676968-17 · doi:10.4324/9781315676968-17
  27. 10.1017/S0272263119000329 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/lang.12205 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Révész A, 2017, Investigating IELTS Academic Writing Task 2: Relationships between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory
  30. 10.1017/S027226311900024X · DOI · Paper page
  31. Rijlaarsdam G, 1996, The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications, 107
  32. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.08.005 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80111-8 · DOI
  34. Scardamalia M, 1987, Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 142
  35. Schilperoord J, 1996, It’s about time: Temporal aspects of cognitive processes in text production, 10.1163/9789004458598 · DOI
  36. 10.1191/136216800675510135 · doi:10.1191/136216800675510135
  37. Spelman Miller K, 2006, Computer key-stroke logging: Methods and applications, 131
  38. 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00140.x · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.06.002 · DOI
  40. Tillema M, 2012, Writing in first and second language: Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes
  41. 10.1007/s11409-011-9072-x · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.compcom.2015.09.012 · DOI
  43. Van Weijen D, 2009, Writing processes, text quality, and tasks effects: Empirical studies in first and second language writing
  44. 10.3758/BRM.41.2.337 · DOI
  45. Xu C, 2017, Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 20, 24

Cited by

See all 73

Metadata

Authors
Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N.-E., Lee, M., & Borges, L.
Venue
Second Language Research
Published
2020-05-13
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
307-334
ISSN
  • 0267-6583
  • 1477-0326
Cited by
73
References
1
Language
en
Funders
educational testing service (Committee of Examiners and the Test of English as)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.